Outcomes at One-Year Post Anastomosis from a National Cohort of Infants with Oesophageal Atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to provide a contemporaneous assessment of outcomes at one-year post oesophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula (OA-TOF) repair, focussing particularly on post-operative complications. It is generally accepted that oesophageal stricture is the most common complication and causes significant morbidity. We also aimed to assess the efficacy of prophylactic anti-reflux medication (PARM) in reducing stricture formation. METHOD: A prospective, multi-centre cohort study of all infants live-born with oesophageal atresia in the United Kingdom and Ireland in 2008/9 was performed, recording clinical management and outcomes at one year. The effect of PARM on stricture formation in infants with the type-c anomaly was assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: 151 infants were live-born with oesophageal atresia in the defined reporting period, 126 of whom had the type-c anomaly. One-year follow-up information was returned for 105 infants (70%); the mortality rate was 8.6% (95% CI 4.7-14.3%). Post-operative complications included anastomotic leak (5.4%), recurrent fistula (3.3%) and oesophageal stricture (39%). Seventy-six (60%) of those with type-c anomaly were alive at one-year with returned follow-up, 57(75%) of whom had received PARM. Of these, 24 (42%) developed a stricture, compared to 4 (21%) of those who had not received PARM (adjusted odds ratio 2.60, 95% CI 0.71-9.46, p = 0.147). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a benchmark for current outcomes and complication rates following OA-TOF repair, with oesophageal stricture causing significant morbidity. The use of PARM appeared ineffective in preventing strictures. This study creates enough doubt about the efficacy of PARM in preventing stricture formation to warrant further investigation of its use with a randomised controlled trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".